The details of my Fri May 30th deposition

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">I arrived at the Port Authority offices at 225 Park Ave at about 4:15PM. I was awaiting a call from Couselor Steven Gorelick, attorney for Stern &amp; Kilcullen representing the Port Authority. However, Mr. Gorelick failed to call me to advise me to confirm if we were still on for 4PM. Therefore I made an assumption that things were still a go. It was good that I did.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">I was greeted by Port Authority attorney Jay Selcov. He was very gracious and polite. He spoke with me for a while, as we waited the current deposition to complete.<span> </span>I found Mr. Selcov to be the polar opposite of Mr. Gorelick. To meet Mr. Selcov is to meet a man who is congenial, seems to enjoy life, and has an easy going way about him. Mr. Gorelick, however, plays the part of a crafty/weasely/conniving lawyer straight out of Hollywood central casting. Short in stature with a direct manner with he had a smile that you just can’t seem to bring yourself to trust.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Also present with Mr. Gorelick was another attorney, Howard Tat. Other than appearing to handle the paperwork he spoke little. Representing the BLRA from McManimon &amp; Scotland was Attorney Jamie Placek.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Mr. Gorelick did not let me down in his performance once the deposition began. I had suspected that my deposition would have little or nothing to do with the current case of Port Authority v. BLRA and everything to do with attempting to discover information that might allow the Port Authority to try and have my case dismissed. This soon became apparent to Mr. Placek as well, who, to his credit (and in his client’s interest) began a surprisingly heated exchange with Mr. Gorelick. He was adamant that Mr. Gorelick’s line of questioning had nothing to do with the current case. He instructed Mr. Gorelick that he should be advising me, as a witness without representation with a Pro Se complaint pending against Mr. Gorelick’s client that the questions he were asking me could potentially harm my own case, and that if the judge were aware of the tactics that Mr. Gorelick was attempting that he might not approve of such actions. Mr. Gorelick said that he was under no obligation to advise me of such, so Mr. Placek went on record and advised me of such, and then further stated that he would be objecting to the questions Mr. Gorelick would be asking me for the rest of the session.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Mr. Gorelick attempted to “Trap” me into admitting that I knew of the 45 day time limit on my ability to file. However, following the heated exchange between he &amp; Mr. Placek, I told him directly that his line of questioning was ridiculous. I told him there was no need to try to trap me… that I freely admit to knowing that I am outside the 45 time limit. I told him, as is evidenced by my letter to the judge, that I was unaware until my discussions with Mr. Jay Coffey that any legal remedy presented itself to me as a citizen. I further told him that as I understand the law now, I had the right to file my motion, to be heard by a judge, who according to the law has the ability to extend the 45 day time period if the interest of justice would be served. And what is more just than a taxpayer attempting to prevent two public agencies from stealing $40 million dollars from the taxpayer’s pockets? I went on to say that the interest of justice would certainly be served, especially if I got the chance to question such players at Mr. Doria, and Ms, Susan Bass Levin, and attempt to expose the backroom deal created to cheat the taxpayer.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">After I finished my emphatic statement Mr. Gorelick gave me a sneer as if to say “like I care about the taxpayer” and proceeded with further questions.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Now, it should be noted that I had provided Mr. Gorelick a digital copy of an email exchange that Mr. Jay Coffey and I had in mid February right after I wrote a letter to the Judge in the PA case. That email exchange detailed my questions to Mr. Coffey on what my options were as a concerned citizen. Because I was speaking to Mr. Coffey as a citizen to a public official and not as a client-attorney, I readily handed these over to Mr. Gorelick with no issue. I handed him these digital documents on Wednesday when I was originally subpoenaed. Mr. Gorelick saw fit to quote from these documents and question me on them. This was much to Mr. Placek’s surprise, who had NOT been provided a digital copy of them, and was only provided a paper copy at 5pm during the deposition. Again he strenuously objected to this and again said that the judge would not be pleased at all by this maneuver. At this point he also stated that Mr. Gorelick was very obviously asking me questions that had no relevance or bearing on the PA v BLRA case.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">I then said to Mr. Gorelick that I had to agree with Mr. Placek’s statement. I said that I obviously had no inside knowledge about the land deal that occurred between the PA &amp; BLRA. Furthermore I told him that all almost conversations that I had on the matter were public record, and that he was free to read this website as well as the archives of NJ.com to see what my thoughts on the matter were and how they progressed over time. <span></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Mr. Gorelick’s conduct was so surprising that at one point he went so far as to shush his own client, Mr. Selcov, when Mr. Selcov appeared to want to intervene on my behalf.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">During <span></span>the break in deposition I asked Mr. Gorelick when he would be switching sides to come over to the good guys. Surprisingly Mr. Gorelick responded that he believed he is on the side of the good guys. Of course, I pursued this further, asking him how that could be, but he declined to comment further on the matter, only attempting to reassure me that at times when he was younger he had done pro bono work and had worked on such matters as my own. This would lead me to wonder how he could be possibly believe that he was on the right side now? Surely he must be lying to himself or me in this matter.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal">My deposition lasted just under 2 hours. There was some discussion prior to my deposition amongst the attorney present on accepting the “service” I had provided (notice of my legal action), as supposedly it was not served properly. I told them I was happy to make copies and hand them out to individuals personally if need be. They said no, but wished an extension on their reply until July 22^nd as the judge is due to decide on July 7^th on a motion to dismiss, provide summary judgment or allow the case to proceed. <span></span>Even in the event that the case is dismissed, my case will still be able to move forward.</p>